battlefieldfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Dinosaurs
No he has prove with the image and he provides significant info. Maybe the title should be different.Stop drinking the haterade and start drinking the bubble tea! http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/battlefield/images/thumb/4/47/Chao1.jpg/50px-Chao1.jpg 19:10, January 29, 2012 (UTC) This is about the EASTER EGG guys not the fake mode. Please dont delete it took me ages to make and is true. Take a look. All true and all relivent to the BF3 wiki i wish some people would read a page before going to the delete button. I spent ages both looking for these and making the page. I gave proper links to proof, all the info and all true. If someone thinks it doesnt need to be there, message me about it. Dont just try and delete the page and ruin peoples work when it IS actually correct. 19:20, January 29, 2012 (UTC)Nism100 I'm agreeing on this one. its an easter egg.-- Slopijoe Barracks {C}{C 19:23, January 29, 2012 (UTC) And since when the Easter Egg dinossaurs talk about cakes or the dinos themselves have names? Is it looking too obvious? Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|''talk]]) 19:46, January 29, 2012 (UTC) You dont know much about this topic do you? mate go into the hangar area near the airfield. Look at one of the tables and you see a letter. Read it. There were are; thats my proof. Or go to this video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUhrQyf-kec The names come from those who found these in the first place and they were the first people to do it so decided to name them. I will take away the names if you want but i think considering how long they spent looking for it, naming them isn't a big ask 20:20, January 29, 2012 (UTC)Nism100 : Well, what gives you the right of naming them and put them as official in the wiki? : Not only this, the article is honestly very, very poorly-written, and not article worthy. I'd say to merge it to Wake Island 2014 and please, with correct grammar.....Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|talk]]) 21:08, January 29, 2012 (UTC) {C}{C '''I' didnt name them and if you look at the comment above yours that would be clear it was named by those who found them and considering how long they spent, thats fair enough. I didnt name anything. If you dont like the way its writen, by all means change it but this is about the dinosaur easter egg, not wake island. If you have a problem with it, I have no problem with changing it but its an object in BF3 that therefor fits the BF wiki, its correct info and has enough info about it, so I dont see why you put it up for deletion in the first place 17:51, January 30, 2012 (UTC) Nism100 : I''' didnt name them and if you look at the comment above yours that would be clear it was named by those who found them and considering how long they spent, thats fair enough'' - But you did place them in the article. : If you dont like the way its writen, by all means change it but this is about the dinosaur easter egg, not wake island. I'm sorry, what was the map the easter egg is in, again? Do we even have enough info to have a article long enough to surpass a "Stub" rating? No, we don't. And not only it '''''doesn't appear on other maps, but it could make Wake's article richer. : And saying again, I believe I left it clear why I placed it on CtD. Little information, little writting reviewing and information parts (dinossaur names) with no source at all. I ended up wrong about and took it off (why the bloody hell do you still talk about it?!), but we have to leave better written information, otherwise anyone who crosses by will have a similar reaction to mine. Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|''talk]]) 19:24, January 30, 2012 (UTC) Quite frankly, they aren't noteworthy. This is the literal equivalent of making a page on the 2142 license plates in BF2. They deserve a trivia point on Wake Island page and on Fear No Evil page, but beyond that they shouldn't be mentioned on this wiki. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 20:43, January 30, 2012 (UTC) As I have said before, if you think it could be better, change it where you think it could be, instead of complaining about it. Its my job as the creator to give the info as best I can and the others' job is to edit if they think it could be better. CoD wiki has a page about Teddy Bears with no complaint. This is a wiki ABOUT SOMETHING TO DO WITH BATTLEFIELD so its allowed on this wiki, as thats kinda the idea. If you like the idea of this page or not, it isnt a breach of rules on wikia and its something that can be made a ppage out of. You can dothe same with easter eggs if you want, I wont stop you. Like I said, instead of sitting down complaining about how poorly written it is, get off your arse and make changes where you think it needs improving instead of complaining about it. Its as simple as that and the wikia community should know thats how wikia works. 23:16, January 30, 2012 (UTC) Nism100 : Why do we have to finish the job '''you' started? If you're starting/re-vamping a page, do what I do (and I'm guessing many others), get a WordPad, test the code out, and see if it goes to the length of our average articles. If not, give it up, but don't leave a page with rather irrelevant information in the wiki's mainspace and expect us to finish it, when we don't have the info to finish it either. : Either way, if you're taking this to the CoD Wiki, Teddy Bears have a strong link to the players and the devs themselves, and has a major factor in the gameplay of Nazi Zombies and what not, being a perpetual symbol of conscience of living war costs, or rather bad luck. That runs circles in in-game impact to the one 4chan anons did when they decided to troll in ActiVision that gave the lack of dinosaurs as an excuse to the poor PC sales (when, if you don't remember, it was the lack of dedicated server support that consequently created the alterIWnet community). So, I'm not near believing it deserves an article of its own. A main one about easter eggs, maybe (like the 2142 license plates and newspapers of BF2, Acta Non Verba's reference in BF2142 or even the 2143 box in Wake Island 2014), but a single article talking about the dinosaurs of BF3 won't be relevant at any point as of now. Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|''talk]]) 23:51, January 30, 2012 (UTC) We have policies that need to be enforced here; as an administrator it is my job to do so. As per BF:ARTICLE, second paragraph, pages should only be created on '''significant and notable' topics -- easter eggs as a whole aren't notable. The CoD wiki's policies are different from ours. They do whatever they want, but it'd non-sequitur here. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 01:23, January 31, 2012 (UTC) Theres was no point of deleting it. It was an easter egg. Maybe the title was a not specific enough, but he has a large amount of evidence. Links and photos. And you said Its off-topic? How is it off-topic? I dont get it........Stop drinking the haterade and start drinking the bubble tea! http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/battlefield/images/thumb/4/47/Chao1.jpg/50px-Chao1.jpg 01:29, January 31, 2012 (UTC) For the record guys {C}{C What you dont get is an easter egg is in the game, if its in the game, its about BF so theres nothing wrong with putting it there. If you dont like finishing what others start, why are you on wikia? Every page on wikia has been made and edited by others where they seem fit. thats finishing what others started and saying why should you? How about because that is the idea of Wikia?? It seems with you that you don't want to do that and are just happy to sit in the talk area complaining about it. If you have a problem, solve it instead of whining about it. Like it or not, this page was legit info, it was short but was open to editing for those who had more info on the matter, and had links. If you didnt notice, as one of your other comments state, Wake island was in the first sentence, so you can't say I didn't make it clear, when it was your fault for not reading with your eyes. Then you say I didn't have links. I had the video from youtube linked to the page. You complained about me saying cake was involved and it sounded fake, guess what? If you looked you might actually see I was correct. If you don't like the page, don't ruin my work by deleting it, make it more worthy, but it is a page that does fit the rules, as an easter egg is related. All the reasons this page was up for deletion for were unfair and were mainly down to you failing to read the info first and even before it went, when you were happily complaining, you failed to notice.For a wikia community, you don't seem happy to help out much if you see a problem, meerly complain. Nism100 16:22, January 31, 2012 (UTC) Nism100 : For the last time, how are we making an article more worthy if there's no more info available? And do you need to hear a second time to understand that our article policy is not inclusive to minor topics about Battlefield, but rather the major ones? All the arguments we've put in are valid by our policies, and even the wiki's main admin came in and agreed that the content isn't page-worthy, but rather a piece of trivia. What's the part that is senseless here? Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|''talk]]) 18:19, January 31, 2012 (UTC) You're totally missing the point of my posts here, pal. This wiki is only bound by Wikia's Terms of Service. They have no (or rather, few) rules -- we as a community are up to decide what policies we uphold. I'm stating that this page is not significant or noteworthy enough to even have a page, especially when this info is much better suited to a trivia bullet point on the Wake Island page, not as a separate page. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 18:33, January 31, 2012 (UTC) I understand you don't think its page worthy, but it pretty much is worthy of a page if people add to it. Its an item in BF3 and I dont see why it can't be a wiki page when it plays a biog enough part in a map to get itself one. I offered content enough (The letter, the locations, the reasons behind the easter egg and so on) but it could of been built upon by someone to extend it, so you can't say it has no content. Like I said you have complained about the way it is written instead of sorting it out. I gave links to sources and gave the info there was, with further info that could of been given if people wanted to do it. I don't see your issue apart from the bit about this not being a page, but, as I have said, if its relevant to battlefield, and it doesnt break rules (The rules don't say a page CAN'T be done about an easter egg and is more down to opinion) there is no issue especcially considering more info could be added. I understand ppl have said it is a trivia point, no offence but the rules don't state you can't do it about something like this, and is more opinion as said. Condsidering people who know about this topic, I would prefer this page got judged by those who do. Nism100 20:24, January 31, 2012 (UTC) Except that it's such a minute thing; ergo it's not applicable (remember, it has to be '''SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY'). Just because it's related and "doesn't break the rules" doesn't mean it has to have a page; if that were the case we'd have pages on Trees and dirt and humans. Again, it's EXACTLY THE EQUIVALENT of making a page on the 2142 license plates in BF2. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 20:37, January 31, 2012 (UTC) If you wan't to make a page about the license plates, I won't stop you. I think that hidden little dinosaur toys hidden around the map count as significant enough, and I would count as noteworthy if I saw a random dinosaur around the map. I know others, like those wo spent there time searching for them would too, as would others. I would count it slightly more noteworthy than the obvious tree you go by, as some might not even know that the dinosaurs are there. And THAT IS THE POINT THIS PAGE IS HERE. You seem to be avoiding the fact that you have complained about how it is written yet not willing to change yourself. Considering how much of a point you made it, you haven't seemed to of backed it up when I ask why don't you edit yourself other than not wanting to do the idea of wikia. Like I said, if someone wants a bit of a complaint, make it someone who knows about it instead of someone who doesn't know much about it, which should of been important if you were going to delete it based on wrong info as one of the points (i.e; The cake was actually legit) Nism100 21:10, January 31, 2012 (UTC) :I deleted it because the page is unneeded and any info relating to it goes on the Wake Island 2014 page. End of discussion. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 21:12, January 31, 2012 (UTC) {C}{C Wow thats smooth. If you read the top post above yours you would see it is legit enough. If you think its not, thats more an opinion and that's not fair for it to be deleted under that. If you read ANYTHING is said, you would see that it is page worthy following the points you all said it wasn't. If you have an issue as i have said, make changes, don't delete mine and others work for it. If you won;t do it for this page, save us all the trouble and do it in future. If you had left this page be as the legitimate page it was, none of this argument would of happened, and creating it in first place is no crime. As I said, for a wikia community, you don't do much that wikia requires you to do. No matter who you are, it is unfair for someones work to be deleted like this for your own view which is, according to the rules which you have mentioned, incorrect. Like it or not, wikia requires more than a create and a delete button. Hopefully you realise that soon guys... Nism100 22:15, January 31, 2012 (UTC) : The question is not if Wikia has more than a create and a delete button. The question is when you use the "create" button is unneeded moments. And I'm honestly getting tired of this conversation, I see you put the same arguments that have been answered according to the policies that we (the community) have placed. I don't know if you like to hear the same answer until you become ignored or what, but I'll say for the 10th time it appears on this talk, it has to be SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY. That isn't applied, as it is rather hard to even try to make it to the Wiki classification we're looking for on all articles, which is reaching the size and quality of articles like this, this and this, among others. That isn't near possible with just a minor easter egg out of many that they placed in Wake Island 2014. End of Discussion. Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|''talk]]) [ ] 22:26, January 31, 2012 (UTC) ---- Your not getting it...if you read the last comment you might of done. Little dinosaurs hidden around the map is more significant than your saying and is definately noteworthy and may dont even know they are there and thats why this page would help. Thats my point. You say that we keep to policies, as I have said SEVERAL TIMES it does, but you just don't want to admit it. If you don't want to stop saying the same thing over and over and not accept your point isnt valid, fair enough. I hope you have loads of fun complaining about others work, saying its badly written yet not solving it yourself (And saying u shouldnt start what others finish when thats what wikia is about) and deleting others pages, all of which you love to do. Nism100 16:11, February 1, 2012 (UTC) :You're the one who's not getting it. It's significant enough to have a trivia point, but NOT TO HAVE ITS OWN GODDAMN PAGE. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 16:18, February 1, 2012 (UTC) {C}{C By the rules you have said it is pretty much a fit. Little dinos hidden around a map are noteworthy enough and could be significant if more was added to it. I have said that several times now. :Are you being intentionally confrontational or something? You've been told it is not significant enough to warrant a page on multiple occasions. And yet you persist in claiming it is, as if you are the sole arbiter of what is and is not permitted on this wiki. Raven's wing 16:57, February 1, 2012 (UTC) ::Thank you, Raven! ::And if you do persist, read at the very least our policy. It says that the articles should be about "''all games, wars, major characters, official mods, trailers, weapons and accessories, vehicles, maps and levels" and that "this list is '''not' inclusive''". Since when are bloody dinosaur toys spread around a map going to equalize that in the "major topic of gameplay" scenario? ::We have the rules, we're following them. You should as well. Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|''talk]]) [ ] 17:03, February 1, 2012 (UTC) well first of all pedro you only started sying about rules when others did. You didnt delete this to keep to the rules. An easter egg hasnt been classified out of the rules and i love the way you have moved away from the previous section of the rules you were saying and gone with a new one to attempt to prove me wrong. Get your story straight which one you are arguing with. Easter eggs arent included but aren't really something you can say cannot be a page about. Your arguments for why you don't like this have changed. At least I am saying the same thisg instead of changing the story. I would go on but I dont want to finish the comment you started as thats not what we are meant to do on wikia is it? At least the others have kept it straight : I'm getting tired of this, I have a lot more to do than be arguing ''over the Internet. I've told you why we deleted the page, and I don't see where I changed my arguments. An easter egg is trivia-worthy, but not page worthy and the policy prooves it. I already responded onto your arguments according to our rules and you honestly are stubborn as heck and don't accept them. You can write any more arguments, because you're not getting any more answers from me, I've got plenty of other things to do. Have a good day. Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|''talk]]) [ ] 17:38, February 1, 2012 (UTC) ...and i have responded with saying why it does fit the rules and all i have got is the same response that I just answered... If you dont want to respond thats fine, but in future dont delete peoples stuff fon invalid reasosns because as the start you said because it was fake. Then when people said it might not be following rules you jumped on that too, and then used the rules others had said. Thats what I mean by changing your story. I really sttill don't see how this is fair, and I have better things to do than argue to people who don't get it that maybe it could be page worthy if you knew about what it was, which especially pedro do not know. EVERY other wikia I have seen is fair under this point, and the way this isn't says allot about the community. I was kind of hoping the community would be better to do this and say stuff liek "I am not going to finish what you started" when asked to do a relitively simple task of sorting out what they think is wrong with the way is written. You all have to admit that is sad when that is the idea. All good luck in your future on this wikia, as you all seem to be doing fine by yourselfs without help from others. Nism100 19:20, February 1, 2012 (UTC) Right, I'm drawing a line under this. Show the class where you have conclusively and unequivocally demonstrated that this is worthy of a page and not simply a trivia point please. Raven's wing 19:24, February 1, 2012 (UTC) Enough Its not worthy of a Page and never will be. First off, it can all ways be put in the Wake Island 2014 page, second off comparing this to the Teddy bear page on COD Wiki is completly dumb. We are NOT COD wikia we have different polocies then them. -- 01:54, February 2, 2012 (UTC) :Which is what we've all been saying ''the whole time. Raven's wing 11:15, February 2, 2012 (UTC)